It has been stated that: "It would not be logical
to prepare an extremely risky mission to secretly place explosives in ADDITION
to jets, since it was certainly possible that any preparations for explosives
would be damaged by the crashes and later detected."

Perhaps, but perhaps the possibility was extremely low. I'm not a military demolition
expert, so I wouldn't know, but I believe that the evidence that the buildings
-were- taken down by controlled demolition is definitive.

spidergoat
has argued that the evidence is far from definitive. I did qualify that
'definitive' with an 'i believe'- I acknowledge that many remain unconvinced
but I attribute this to a lack of knowledge concerning the relevant facts.

It has been stated that "unless there was residue
of explosives at the site, or evidence of explosive related material, the rest
of it is pure conjecture.". There was, in fact, such residue.
My evidence and arguments that this is indeed the case can be seen here.

It has been stated that "The towers, if you notice,
did not fall straight down, The top section fell on the damaged section and
tilted on an angle, then the lower floors pancaked." My response
can be seen here.

It has been argued that "Demolitions require multiple
blast points and usually start from the ground up."

In the case of WTC 7, it did indeed start from the ground
up. In the case of the twin towers, there is evidence that the initial explosions
were near simultaneous with the aircraft collisions and that they happened in
the basements. There is lots of evidence that there were far more blast points
as well: